Oracle and adaptive false discovery rate controlling methods for one‐sided testing: theory and application in treatment effect evaluation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Economists are often interested in identifying effective policies or treatments together with subpopulations of individuals who respond positively (or with a sign that is expected) to these treatment interventions. In this paper, we propose an optimal false discovery rate controlling method that is especially useful for such one‐sided testing problems. The proposed procedure is optimal in the sense of minimizing the false non‐discovery rate while controlling the false discovery rate at a pre‐specified level; it uses a deconvolution method based on non‐parametric maximum likelihood estimation, which allows for a broader class of treatment effect distributions than existing methods do. The proposed test demonstrates good small‐sample performance in Monte Carlo simulations and it is applied to study the effect of attending a more selective high school in Romania. The application reveals strong evidence of treatment effect heterogeneity, in that students who marginally gain access to higher‐ranked schools are more likely to benefit if the higher‐ranked school has a relatively high admission score cut‐off – or, in other words, is more selective.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.212 | 0.506 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.008 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".